A quick update on Twitter
Many of you have asked about donating to a legal defense (offense?) fund
I am still considering my legal options, including what lawyer or firm to hire. A potential suit is complex and would cover - at a minimum - First Amendment issues, contract law, and drug/vaccine law.
I plan to make a decision quickly. I understand now more than I ever have before how valuable the feed was for people. Further, in suspending it, Twitter has blocked the links and screenshots to the studies referenced in the tweets, making vital public health information harder to find.
A lawsuit may be expensive, and I appreciate your offers of donations. Several very wealthy people have offered to help as well, and my strong preference is to rely on them if possible; I don’t think people with mortgages to pay should be subsidizing this fight, unless there is no choice.
The good news is that the Substack is growing fast. Nearly as many people have now read the Vietnam post as read the natural immunity post, the last post I was able to distribute on Twitter. Still, Substack cannot substitute for Twitter, which has about 200 million daily active users.
More updates to come. Thanks for standing with me.
All best
Alex
How energizing to read that there is big money to back you up--this is republic-saving stuff! But don't underestimate the value of bringing along your supporters. Giving us a chance to chip in, however small the $, gives us "skin in the game" and reinforces our commitment. It is as much a symbolic issue as a financial one. We want to be a part of this. And we want to show the world that you stand for all of us. Money speaks--let us add our voices!
I am in the legal profession (but based in Europe) and advise you look into defamation as a further grounds. They have explicitly accused you of publishing "misleading" information - and they have broadcast this to the many followers you had. That means you are accused of being either (a) dishonest or (b) incompetent/negligent. Either way, they are broadcasting, to all your followers, that you are not to be trusted or believed. I would have thought that is seriously defamatory, especially when broadcast in such a way to such a large audience.
It would then be up to them to prove that what you said was in fact "misleading", as they allege. That is the way libel laws work in England, anyway. (There are possible technical opt-outs they may try such as "qualified privilege" - not sure about the equivalent in US law - but I would have thought it would be difficult for them to hide behind such.)
Thinking about it ... they may try a desperate defence such as "well, his followers will continue to believe him anyway so our libel had no impact on his reputation ..." but good luck to them getting that one past any decent court!